While I work on a larger
piece about modern day action movies, I thought it might be worthwhile to post a
review that some of you might not have seen on my Facebook. So, without further
ado, here’s my review of EL CRIMEN DEL PADRE AMARO.
When I first heard of
(and saw) this film, it was being presented as part of Georgetown College’s
yearly foreign film series. To begin with, EL CRIMEN DEL PADRE AMARO is (as far
as I know) the highest grossing film in Mexico’s history. Directed by Carlos
Carrera, the film is loosely based on the 19th century novel “O
Crime do Padre Amaro” by José Maria de
Eça de Queirós (the longer the names attached to the film, the more money it’ll
gross). The film, which tells the story of Father Amaro (Gael
Garcia Bernal), a young priest who is thrown into a world of corrupt politics
and sexual passion and finds himself enthralled with a 16 year old girl,
sparked controversy for its harshly negative criticism of the Catholic Church
as well as for its blatant portrayal of sexuality (lighten up Popey, amiright?).
Before the film started,
the professor that was presenting the film gave a brief preview of the film.
She gave a warning that in the film there are graphic depictions of sex and
nudity (Alright, keep talkin’) and that if you felt the need to leave, no one
would judge you (I might have judged you). She also explained that the message
the film was trying to communicate was that we are all corruptible. Adding to this, she said something that
afterward I felt was very appropriate. “You’ll see some good and bad in all of
them.” Now, to what she was referring was that during the film none of the characters
can be seen as solely “good” or “evil”; that they all have something about
them, something they’ll do, that you’ll find off-putting. And although this was true, it also applies
on a different level—the acting.
Throughout the film, I
found myself repeatedly flip-flopping on the acting. For a great amount of the
time I felt like I was watching a special, two-hour long episode of a generic
telenovela. Not that I watch telenovelas…What? (I can feel your judging eyes). As
I was saying, throughout most of the film the dialogue and acting feels very
forced or simply not realistic, and I often found myself enjoying the
supporting characters more than the main cast simply because they were more
believable (a certain tone-deaf, wafer-pilfering crone notwithstanding). However,
as the professor foretold, you see some bad, but you also see some good. And
while a lot of the acting and dialogue is unrealistic, what makes up for it is
what the characters do when they aren’t talking—when they’re just reacting.
Some of the best moments
in the film happen when no one is saying anything. The eye movement and overall
mannerisms of the entire cast, especially Bernal as Father Amaro, are really
what bring the story home for me. When Father Amaro and the young girl Amelia
(Ana Talia Talancón) interact
I found myself tuning out what they were saying to focus in on what they were
doing. The nervous eyes, the small twitches and flinches—it’s the subtleties
that make the film what it is. When Amaro’s words put up a wall against
Amelia’s advances, his mannerisms are what show you how weak the wall actually
is. Many critics have panned the film for becoming too much like a soap opera,
saying that it tends to bury its reformist message within a campy heap of
sweaty clerics clothes (sorry for that image). And for the last half of the
film I’d probably tend to agree. However, if this is the only way you see the
film then you’re not watching carefully enough.
While the film is shot
with very straightforward cinematography, uses music only to help you get
through the driving scenes, and has dialogue that is often stagnant, it still
gets its message across. And for a film, that’s the most important thing. You
have to pay attention. I believe the film works on two levels. Sure, you can
just watch it solely for entertainment (but who watches a movie for
entertainment? Not this guy), but you’ll be missing the bigger picture. On one
level you can view it as a conspicuous bashing of the church, where every
priest in the diocese (apart from one) is corrupt in one form or another and
see it as a soap opera that fails at what it’s trying to do. Or, you can really
watch and pay attention to all the subtleties the film has to offer and really
grasp what corruption does to the people intimately involved with it and the Mexican
population as a whole.
I believe this film, aside from its many
flaws, gives a wonderful glimpse into Mexican culture and how deep the
connection with the church (and, subsequently, its alleged corruption) lies. As
such, I find that it is definitely worth a watch and would recommend that you
try to see this film (if only for the glimpses it offers into a different culture).
Just don’t see it in a corrupt way (see what I did there?).
